10 ms·

I'm not sure that the writer has a clear idea of what free markets are or what peace is. You couldn't by any exaggeration describe the trade situation between

I'm not sure that the writer has a clear idea of what free markets are or what peace is. You couldn't by any exaggeration describe the trade situation between China and the US since 2008 as a "free market". Nor could you describe the system under which EU members buy Russian fuel as one; as long as governments pursue political goals by economic means, the market isn't free — and I don't think I'm moving the goalposts in saying that. And peace doesn't require that the Russians and Chinese become our friends; it requires that they recognize that trade would be a greater loss than any gains from war could recompense.

cool_dude85 4y ago
Then what is a "free market"? Are we back to definitions where no actor has market power, where rational actors have well-defined utility functions and there is no information asymmetry to be found? If so, we can't say much about such free markets as none has, will, or can ever exist.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  “True Free Markets Haven’t Been Tried Yet!”
- simonh 4y ago
  It's a market free enough that the majority of participants trust that no other participants have an unacceptable systemic advantage. It's the participants that decide as a free association of people, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. That's my effort anyway. It's somewhat similar to the situation with democracies, there are many democratic systems. Each favours some over others to at least some extent, the question is whether there is a significant disillusionment among the electorate and an appetite among them for change. As a Brit I don't like the fact that a candidate for President in the US can get a majority of the actual votes, but lose due to the electoral college system, as has happened. An American Might deplore the fact that we don't directly elect our Prime Minister. There are those in each country that deplore these features of their own systems. Nevertheless our respective systems as a whole enjoy broad support among their electorates and that's what matters.
- JasonFruit 4y ago
  I don't think we need to have an argument about what makes a true free market to agree that it's not what we have between China and the US, between the EU countries and Russia, or between the OPEC nations and the rest of the world. I'm not engaging in philosophy here.
  - Psyladine 4y ago
    >I'm not engaging in philosophy here. Then engage in dialogue, which requires a shared understanding. It very much matters the definition of free market if you intend to disprove (or more charitably, propose improvements towards) its existence between state actors in the current world stage.
- leetcrew 4y ago
  I think you are confusing "free market" with "perfect competition". a free market is just a market with minimal government interference (taxes, subsidies, import/export controls, etc.). monopolies and other market failures are not incompatible with free markets. perfect competition is the one that requires all the assumptions about rational actors and perfect information.
  - impossiblefork 4y ago
    But if you accept market failures as still consider it a free market then this free market will have very few of the characteristics of a free market that people hold up as positive or useful, perhaps even those properties that you yourself consider necessary for trade with the other country to be acceptable. Let's therefore consider something pathological: let's suppose that a country has a free market in this sense, but is owned in its entirety by a small group, such as how the nobility in Denmark owned something like 90% of the land, while the population are kept as permanent renters, never permitted to buy any land that has been obtained by that group, not due to law, but to traditions of the land owning group. Do you think it would be reasonable to permit trade with such a country?

cool_dude85 4y ago

Then what is a "free market"? Are we back to definitions where no actor has market power, where rational actors have well-defined utility functions and there is no information asymmetry to be found? If so, we can't say much about such free markets as none has, will, or can ever exist.

spaceman_2020 4y ago
“True Free Markets Haven’t Been Tried Yet!”
simonh 4y ago
It's a market free enough that the majority of participants trust that no other participants have an unacceptable systemic advantage. It's the participants that decide as a free association of people, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. That's my effort anyway. It's somewhat similar to the situation with democracies, there are many democratic systems. Each favours some over others to at least some extent, the question is whether there is a significant disillusionment among the electorate and an appetite among them for change. As a Brit I don't like the fact that a candidate for President in the US can get a majority of the actual votes, but lose due to the electoral college system, as has happened. An American Might deplore the fact that we don't directly elect our Prime Minister. There are those in each country that deplore these features of their own systems. Nevertheless our respective systems as a whole enjoy broad support among their electorates and that's what matters.
JasonFruit 4y ago
I don't think we need to have an argument about what makes a true free market to agree that it's not what we have between China and the US, between the EU countries and Russia, or between the OPEC nations and the rest of the world. I'm not engaging in philosophy here.
- Psyladine 4y ago
  >I'm not engaging in philosophy here. Then engage in dialogue, which requires a shared understanding. It very much matters the definition of free market if you intend to disprove (or more charitably, propose improvements towards) its existence between state actors in the current world stage.
leetcrew 4y ago
I think you are confusing "free market" with "perfect competition". a free market is just a market with minimal government interference (taxes, subsidies, import/export controls, etc.). monopolies and other market failures are not incompatible with free markets. perfect competition is the one that requires all the assumptions about rational actors and perfect information.
- impossiblefork 4y ago
  But if you accept market failures as still consider it a free market then this free market will have very few of the characteristics of a free market that people hold up as positive or useful, perhaps even those properties that you yourself consider necessary for trade with the other country to be acceptable. Let's therefore consider something pathological: let's suppose that a country has a free market in this sense, but is owned in its entirety by a small group, such as how the nobility in Denmark owned something like 90% of the land, while the population are kept as permanent renters, never permitted to buy any land that has been obtained by that group, not due to law, but to traditions of the land owning group. Do you think it would be reasonable to permit trade with such a country?